Incorporating the public interest in public-private partnerships in Ontario: a case study of the Eglinton Crosstown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Province of Ontario sees Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) as an effective means to procure major transportation infrastructure, the public interest implications of P3s from a planning perspective are little understood. P3s are purported to deliver cost-savings to the public sector through transferring expanded elements of risk to the private sector. However, critics argue that P3s erode the public interest through reduced project transparency, weakened public participation, and higher life-cycle project costs. Through a case study of the Eglinton Crosstown transit line in Toronto, this paper evaluates the extent to which the public sector agency, Infrastructure Ontario (IO), has been able to fulfill a series of evaluative criteria grounded in the public interest. Although IO has been able to maintain the public interest in the case of the Eglinton Crosstown, a lack of consistency in project transparency and weakened ex post reporting standards hampers the ability of the agency to consistently uphold the public interest in present and future projects
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".